[Tim]
> huge.join('""')
[Guido]
> Points off for obscurity though!
The Subject line was "Stupid Python Tricks" for a reason <wink>. Those who
don't know the language inside-out should be tickled by figuring out why it
even *works* (hint for the baffled: you have to view '""' as a sequence
rather than as an atomic string).
> My favorite for this is:
>
> '"%s"' % huge
>
> Worth a microbenchmark?
Absolutely! I get:
obvious 15.574
obscure 8.165
sprintf 8.133
after running:
ITERS = 1000
indices = [0] * ITERS
def obvious(huge):
for i in indices: '"' + huge + '"'
def obscure(huge):
for i in indices: huge.join('""')
def sprintf(huge):
for i in indices: '"%s"' % huge
def runtimes(huge):
from time import clock
for f in obvious, obscure, sprintf:
start = clock()
f(huge)
finish = clock()
print "%12s %7.3f" % (f.__name__, finish - start)
runtimes("x" * 1000000)
under current 2.1a1. Not a dead-quiet machine, but the difference is too
small to care. Speed up huge.join attr lookup, and it would probably be
faster <wink>. Hmm: if I boost ITERS high enough and cut back the size of
huge, "obscure" eventually becomes *slower* than "obvious", and even if the
"huge.join" lookup is floated out of the loop. I guess that points to the
relative burden of calling a bound method. So, in real life, the huge.join
approach may well be the slowest!
>> not-entirely-sure-i'm-channeling-on-this-one-ly y'rs - tim
> Give up the channeling for a while -- there's too much interference in
> the air from the Microsoft threaded stdio debate still. :-)
What debate? You need two arguably valid points of view for a debate to
even start <wink>.
gloating-in-victory-vicious-in-defeat-but-simply-unbearable-in-
ambiguity-ly y'rs - tim
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4